The pending prosecution of former National Security Agency official Thomas A. Drake, who was alleged to be a source of classified information in a series of newspaper articles about the NSA, will present “novel” legal issues for the court to consider, prosecutors and defense attorneys said in a joint motion last week.
“The indictment raises complex factual and legal issues and novel questions of law relating to, among other things, the retention of classified materials,” they wrote in an April 29 motion (pdf) to waive the right to a speedy trial.
Unlike former DoD official Larry Franklin in the troubled AIPAC case (which was abandoned by the government before trial last year), Mr. Drake was not charged with unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Instead, he is accused of “willful retention of classified information.” The precise nature of this offense, and the threshold for culpability in this case, remain to be litigated.
“The prosecution of this case will involve classified documents,” the joint motion stated, and the defense “may involve classified documents,” necessitating that defense counsel obtain the required security clearances. “The pre-indictment investigation in this case spanned more than two years,” the motion noted, though defense counsel was not appointed until after the indictment (pdf) issued.
A trial date has been tentatively scheduled for October 18, 2010.
Datasets and variables that do not align with Administration priorities, or might reflect poorly on Administration policy impacts, seem to be especially in the cross-hairs.
One month of a government shutdown is in the books, but how many more months will (or can) it go? Congress is paralyzed, but there are a few spasms of activity around healthcare and the prospects of a continuing resolution to punt this fight out until January or later.
At a period where the federal government is undergoing significant changes in how it hires, buys, collects and organizes data, and delivers, deeper exploration of trust in these facets as worthwhile.
Moving postsecondary education data collection to the states is the best way to ensure that the U.S. Department of Education can meet its legislative mandates in an era of constrained federal resources.